Back
1933 Supreme(SC) 12
Privy Council At Patna
Sir George Lowndes, Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Wright, Thankerton, Justice Lords Atkin, JJ.
Dwarkanath Varma and another -Appellant
Versus
Emperor -Resopndent
Appeal No. 111 of 1931, Patna Appeals Nos. 45 of 1930 and 9 of 1931
Decided On : 27-01-1933
W. Wallach, A.M. Dunne, John Hutchinson, Dawson-Miller
Convictions for perjury and conspiracy are unsustainable if the accused relied on independent professional evidence and the court failed to follow statutory requirements for examining the accused under Section 342 CrPC. Conspiracy requires a meeting of minds, negated by reliance on independent, honest professional reports.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 191 and 194 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - Sections 194 and 342 - Perjury and Conspiracy - Conviction of a medical practitioner for perjury and a police officer for conspiracy and fabricating evidence - Medical practitioner's post-mortem report indicated ante-mortem injuries, leading to convictions in a murder trial, which were later found to be a miscarriage of justice - Conviction for perjury unsustainable where no motive for dishonesty was established and the court failed to question the accused under Section 342 CrPC on a vital point of evidence -
(B) Conspiracy - To establish conspiracy, there must be a concert of action - If a police officer relies on an independent medical report believing the charge to be true, an inference of conspiracy with prosecutors who know the charge to be false is weakened to the point of disappearance -
(C) Fabricating Evidence - A general verdict of guilty on a charge involving multiple distinct acts of fabrication is improper, as the falsity and intention for each act must be separately established.
Facts of the case:
A medical practitioner and a police officer were convicted of perjury, conspiracy, and fabricating evidence following a murder trial that was later determined to be a miscarriage of justice. The medical practitioner had conducted a post-mortem and testified that internal injuries were ante-mortem. The police officer had conducted the investigation and made entries in his diary. Both were charged after the original convicts were released.
Findings of Court:
The conviction of the medical practitioner for perjury was not justified as there was no evidence of a conspiracy or motive to lie, and the trial court failed to follow the statutory requirement of Section 342 CrPC. The conviction of the police officer for conspiracy was set aside because he relied on an independent medical report, and the conviction for fabricating evidence was set aside due to the improper use of a general verdict for multiple distinct offences.
Issues: Whether the medical practitioner's failure to explain a specific medical finding constituted perjury; whether the police officer's reliance on a medical report precluded a finding of conspiracy; and whether the procedural failure to examine the accused under Section 342 CrPC and the use of a general verdict on multiple fabrication charges affected the convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that perjury requires a statement known or believed to be false; an omission to explain evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 CrPC cannot be used to infer dishonesty. Conspiracy requires a meeting of minds; reliance on an independent professional opinion negates the inference of a concert with dishonest informants. Multiple distinct acts of fabrication require separate findings of fact and intent.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the administration of justice
- perjury
- fabricating evidence
- criminal conspiracy
-
offences against the administration of justice
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- ex-officio information
- examination of accused
- jury directions
-
criminal procedure
Lord Atkin.-
These are two appeals against conviction and sentence by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The appeal of Gaya Prasad was brought by special leave of the Privy Council after an application for leave to appeal had been refused by the High Court. The appeal of Dwarkanath Varma was by leave of the High Court granted after the special leave had been given to the other appellant. Both appeals were consolidated by order of the High Court. The accused were tried before a Bench of the High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Kulwant Sahay and Dhavle, JJ., and a special jury of nine persons, on an information exhibited by the Government Advocate by the direction and with the sanction of the Local Government pursuant to S. 17 of the Letters Patent, constituting the High Court and S. 194, Criminal P. C., 1898. The appellant Gaya Prasad, an Assistant Civil Surgeon, hereinafter called the doctor, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment; the appellant Dwarkanath Varma, a Sub-Inspector of Police, hereinafter called the Sub-Inspector, was convicted of conspiring with Ritbhanjan Singh, Subedar Singh and Ramdhani Singh and Gaya Prasad to fabricate and give false evidence in Court with the intent to procure conviction for a capital offence of six named persons in breach of S.120-B, I. P. C.; and was also convicted of fabricating evidence in six particulars intending to cause the same six persons to be convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder in breach of S. 194, I. P. C. He was sentenced on each of these charges to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.
At the conclusion of the appeal their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty to allow both appeals and to set aside the convictions, and would give their reasons later, as they now proceed to do. The case was one of some complexity involving questions of considerable medico-legal interest. It has resulted in a miscarriage of justice which has caused two persons of apparently hitherto unblemished reputations to be wrongly convicted of serious offences and to receive sentences of long terms of imprisonment, part of which they had to undergo. It will be necessary to go into some detail in order to explain in what circumstances this unfortunate result occurred.
On 2nd August 1928, the Sub-Inspector, who was stationed at Rohtas in the Province of Bihar and Orissa, was in the course of his duties when in the afternoon complaint was made to him by two men, Ritbhanjan Singh and Subedar Singh, of the village of Balbhadarpur, that at about 2 p. m. of that afternoon they and Ramdhani Singh had seen in Ritbhanjan's paddy field six men, Issardeyal Singh, Sheotahal Singh, his son, Lokan Singh, Muneshar Singh and Mundrika Singh (sons of Lokan) and Jitu Singh assaulting Rhitbhanjan's nephew, Jamadar Singh, with kicks, blows and sticks. Jamadar Singh told them that the bullocks of Issardeyal and Lokan were grazing in the field and that he was driving them away to impound them when he was attacked. The three men carried Jamadar to the village and there he died. They had left the dead body on the ground and had run to report the occurrence to the Sub-Inspector. Proceeding to the village he met Issardeyal and Muneshwar; they denied the charge and alleged that while in their field they had been told by Dhanmantia, daughter of Lokan, that Jamadar had died; and that Jamadar's relations had assaulted Phulkumari, a female relative of Issardeyal, on the ground that by witchcraft she had brought about Jamadar's death. They said that Jamadar had been ill of cholera for three or four days and had died of it that day. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to make inquiries. In the result he arrested the six accused men for murder. He came to the conclusion that the story of the assault on the old lady was false. That same evening, in accordance with his duty, he dispatched the body of Jamadar for post-mortem examinatio
